(14-10-2016 07:18 PM)AnaBunny Wrote: I don't think that believing in God is quite as silly as an adult believing in Santa Claus. Santa Claus is commonly accepted as fake; religion is taken more seriously. So if an adult mentioned that they believe in Santa, people would laugh at them, but if they said they believed in God, people would just nod. So I think it makes more sense for people to believe in something that is commonly believed; more people support their beliefs so they feel less doubt. (But, I do think they should feel doubt at least once, because it is important to question things and think independently.)

So it's less embarassing to have absurd beliefs if others have the same absurd beliefs?

Who are you to judge what is absurd and what is not? Are you the True God?
An absurd is a contradiction, but the Science has never destroyed any of the religions.

Dose a popularity of a belief make it more true?
Or is it how it can be tested?

(15-10-2016 02:40 PM)theBorg Wrote: Who are you to judge what is absurd and what is not?

I'm an educated human being that lives on planet earth.

(15-10-2016 02:40 PM)theBorg Wrote: Are you the True God?

If I said yes would you believe me? Or would you just deny me?
Who are you to judge me? Did you make the heaven's and the earth?

What would your requirements be to accept me as your lord and savor?

(15-10-2016 02:40 PM)theBorg Wrote: An absurd is a contradiction, but the Science has never destroyed any of the religions.

Sort of true. Science hasn't destroyed any religions because that's not it's goal. Science is to busy figuring out how the world works, creating Medicines, and making new discovery's. Not keeping it's head in the ground.

What science can be used for however is to demonstrate how religious ideas don't work.

Biology demonstrates man wasn't formed out of clay.
Astronomy show's we don't live in a glass jar.
Meteorology explains how lighting occurs, and isn't thrown by angry gods in the clouds.

(15-10-2016 03:11 PM)Commonsensei Wrote: .........................
Biology demonstrates man wasn't formed out of clay.
Astronomy show's we don't live in a glass jar.
Meteorology explains how lighting occurs, and isn't thrown by angry gods in the clouds.
.................

A religion has the dogmas and the personal opinions. The Science can modify the personal opinions, but not the dogmas. Therefore, the first and the second points are empty. The third point refers to Greek paganism, but there are still pagans today: they could assumed, what besides the natural lightning, there is the supernatural strikes of electricity.

(15-10-2016 11:48 PM)theBorg Wrote: A religion has the dogmas and the personal opinions. The Science can modify the personal opinions, but not the dogmas. Therefore, the first and the second points are empty. The third point refers to Greek paganism, but there are still pagans today: they could assumed, what besides the natural lightning, there is the supernatural strikes of electricity.

Do you ever get tired of being entirely wrong?

Kneel mortal before Whiskey I, Lord of Dalmore, Duke of Jameson, Defender of the Sloshed, and God-Emperor of Holy Terra.

(14-10-2016 07:18 PM)AnaBunny Wrote: I don't think that believing in God is quite as silly as an adult believing in Santa Claus. Santa Claus is commonly accepted as fake; religion is taken more seriously. So if an adult mentioned that they believe in Santa, people would laugh at them, but if they said they believed in God, people would just nod. So I think it makes more sense for people to believe in something that is commonly believed; more people support their beliefs so they feel less doubt. (But, I do think they should feel doubt at least once, because it is important to question things and think independently.)

So it's less embarassing to have absurd beliefs if others have the same absurd beliefs?

That's how it seems to me. If I'm with a bunch of little kids who all believe in Santa, I won't look weird if I say I believe in Santa.

(16-10-2016 08:34 PM)AnaBunny Wrote: That's how it seems to me. If I'm with a bunch of little kids who all believe in Santa, I won't look weird if I say I believe in Santa.

What you're describing is called the Argument from Popularity. It's a well-loved logical fallacy that says just because many, many people believe something to be true doesn't mean that they aren't all wrong. The truth of a statement is independant of the number of people who believe it.

For example, how many times have you heard that glass is an extremely viscous, super-cooled liquid? It isn't. It's a solid and Victorian era telescopes would be utterly useless now if the glass in their optics flowed. That doesn't stop it from being a widely held belief.

And Santa is a good deal more logically consistent, believable, better written and all-round more likeable than the overwhelming majority of deities.

That said, you are all too right about the peer-pressure. A quick look around this board will show you how many atheists are in the closet in the bible belt. The proportions are much lower up here in Canada. It's easy to be one more red flower in a bed of roses.

---

Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.

(15-10-2016 03:11 PM)Commonsensei Wrote: .........................
Biology demonstrates man wasn't formed out of clay.
Astronomy show's we don't live in a glass jar.
Meteorology explains how lighting occurs, and isn't thrown by angry gods in the clouds.
.................

A religion has the dogmas and the personal opinions. The Science can modify the personal opinions, but not the dogmas.

They were example not points.

Dogma's can not be held in science. They always have to leave the window open to be wrong. If a theory is proven to be incorrect it's must be readjusted or corrected. A large number get superseded, and can there fore obsolete.

Personal opinion are irrelevant. It could be the personal opinion that eating Funyuns on a Monday is bad for your health. Doesn't mean it is.

(15-10-2016 11:48 PM)theBorg Wrote: Therefore, the first and the second points are empty. The third point refers to Greek paganism, but there are still pagans today: they could assumed, what besides the natural lightning, there is the supernatural strikes of electricity.

If I had asked you is your "true god" capable of throwing lighting from the clouds. You would most likely would say yes because he is capable of anything. Right? I have no clue because I have no idea what you think a god is, or is capable of. Nor do I have any examples of a being that would be counted as a god in Real Life. When I've asked in the past you blindly glance over it.